Mr. Speaker, I have another petition signed by almost one hundred Canadians, mostly from Quebec and Ontario, who are urging members of Parliament to vote in favour of Bill C-398. This bill would amend Canada's access to medicines regime and, among other things, better assist people living in underdeveloped countries with the fight against HIV-AIDS.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour today to present a petition signed by dozens of Canadians, among hundreds who have signed this petition.

The petitioners note that the Oshawa Port Authority has given permission to FarmTech Energy to build an ethanol producing plant on Oshawa harbour front on Crown land adjacent to sensitive wetlands containing species at risk, a wildlife preserve and a provincial park.

They call for, among other things, to divest the federal port authority to the City of Oshawa, to halt the construction of the ethanol facility, to instruct that public hearings be held and that a complete environmental assessment be conducted at the site and surrounding areas.

The first petition is signed by more than 100 of my constituents in Scarborough—Rouge River who call for the creation of a national transit strategy.

Since Canada is the only OECD country that does not have a national public transit strategy and it is estimated that over the next five years there will be an $18 billion gap in transit infrastructure needs, the petitioners call on the Government of Canada to provide a permanent investment plan to support public transit, to establish a federal funding mechanism for public transit and to work together with all levels of government to provide sustainable, predictable long-term and adequate funding and establish accountability measures to ensure that all governments work together to increase access to public transit.

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I present today is on the topic of Katimavik.

Because the program provided such great benefits for many youth in our country and since approximately 600 youth who were supposed to participate in the program this year were not able to participate, the petitioners call upon the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister to continue to allocate $14 million per year in funding to the Katimavik program to ensure that our youth have access to both languages and to thrive in those languages.

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition today that has been signed by many Winnipeggers, asking the government to be more sensitive in regard to our environment.

In particular, the petitioners ask that the Canada Experimental Lakes Area be given additional consideration, given the cutback in resources for the research station, and that the money be reinstated for the research station.

The first petition supports Bill C-279 introduced by my colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. The petition supports his bill to combat discrimination and the social exclusion of transgendered people, transsexuals and gender queer people. The petitioners are asking members of Parliament to support this bill.

With regard to national defence: (a) what is the location and nature of any infrastructure at any Canadian Forces base, station or other establishment, which would need to be built or modified to accomodate the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter; and (b) what are the anticipated costs of construction or modification of infrastructure at each location?

Bernard ValcourtAssociate Minister of National Defence and Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency) (La Francophonie)

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), on April 3, 2012, in response to the 2012 spring report of the Auditor General, the Government of Canada announced a seven-point action plan to ensure that Canada acquires the fighter aircraft it needs to complete its core missions and to ensure public confidence in an open and transparent acquisition process. The government has put the decision to purchase any new aircraft on hold until the action plan is complete. Once the action plan is completed and the conclusions are presented to ministers on a replacement for the CF-18 fleet, the government will make a decision on replacement fighter aircraft, including the corresponding Canadian Forces’ infrastructure needs as required.

With regard to (b), the Department of National Defence’s acquisition and sustainment project assumptions and potential costs are the object of an independent cost review that will be made public as mandated in the government’s seven-point action plan to respond to the Auditor General’s spring 2012 report on replacing Canada’s fighter aircraft.

With regard to national defence: (a) what was the rationale for the date, location and timing of the July 16, 2010, announcement concerning the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter selection; (b) who was involved in the selection of the date, location and timing; (c) who selected the guests who were invited to attend the announcement and who invited those guests; and (d) when and how were the invitations sent?

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the date of the announcement was determined by a number of factors, including the availability of senior officials, the venue, and Lockheed Martin’s full-scale F-35 model.

The Government of Canada reception center at Uplands Hangar was selected on the basis of financial, logistical and security considerations, as well as its capacity to host a full-scale F-35 model and a CF-18.

With regard to (b), senior officials from several departments, including the Department of National Defence, Industry Canada, and Public Works and Government Services Canada, participated in the selection of the date, location and timing of the July 16, 2010 announcement.

With regard to (c), the guests were selected by the Office of the Minister of National Defence on the recommendation of Departmental officials. The majority of the guests were invited by the department, while the remainder were invited by the Office of the Minister of National Defence.

With regard to (d), guests invited by the department received an invitation by telephone and/or email on Wednesday July 14, 2010.

With regard to national defence: (a) what is the date and file number of each Statement of Operational Requirement (SOR) which has been written or prepared in respect of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter; (b) how many criteria are in each SOR; (c) what were the reasons for any changes made to each version; (d) what was the nature of those changes; and (e) who requested or directed those changes?

Bernard ValcourtAssociate Minister of National Defence and Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency) (La Francophonie)

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), when the Government of Canada made a decision in 2010 to replace the CF-18s, the statement of operational requirement that informed that decision was the “Statement of Operational Requirement for Canada’s Next Generation Fighter Capability”. It is version 1.0, dated June 1, 2010, and is filed under defence services program number 00002527.

On April 3, 2012, the government announced its seven-point action plan, which is currently being implemented by the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat. One of the steps in the action plan is a requirement for DND to evaluate options to sustain a fighter capability well into the 21st century.

Work on all elements of the seven-point action plan will inform conclusions that will be presented to the government for decision

First, the high-level mandatory capabilities are the broad capabilities required by the new resource and form the basis for deriving the mandatory requirements. The 14 capabilities, in general terms, define the various capabilities that are required by the next generation fighter capability to provide a reasonable expectation of mission success in the presence of current and assessed future threats and take into account NORAD and NATO requirements.

Second, the mandatory requirements, comprising some 28 requirements, are capability elements that must be in the product, as their absence would unacceptably diminish the aircraft’s operational capability. Therefore, the product must meet the mandatory requirements for consideration.

Third, tier 1 requirements, comprising some 158 requirements, are capability elements without which the aircraft’s operational capability would be seriously diminished. An aircraft not meeting a tier 1 requirement would result in the Canadian Forces accepting a high degree of operational risk.

Fourth, tier 2 requirements, comprising some 40 requirements, are capability elements without which the aircraft’s overall operational capability would be diminished. An aircraft not meeting a tier 2 requirement would result in the Canadian Forces accepting a low to medium degree of operational risk.

With regard to (c) and (d), while there is only one version of the statement of operational requirement, the document was developed in stages. The first stage began with determining the high-level mandatory capabilities, which were then used as the foundation for the mandatory requirements. The mandatory requirements were used to derive rated requirements that were classified as tier 1 and tier 2.

With regard to (e), there is only one version of the statement of operational requirement.